Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

DevotedSkeptic writes in with a story about the lack of usable microwave technology to come from 50 years of military research. "For some Pentagon officials, the demonstration in October 2007 must have seemed like a dream come true — an opportunity to blast reporters with a beam of energy that causes searing pain. The event in Quantico, Virginia, was to be a rare public showing for the US Air Force's Active Denial System: a prototype non-lethal crowd-control weapon that emits a beam of microwaves at 95 gigahertz. Radiation at that frequency penetrates less than half a millimetre into the skin, so the beam was supposed to deliver an intense burning sensation to anyone in its path, forcing them to move away, but without, in theory, causing permanent damage. However, the day of the test was cold and rainy. The water droplets in the air did what moisture always does: they absorbed the microwaves. And when some of the reporters volunteered to expose themselves to the attenuated beam, they found that on such a raw day, the warmth was very pleasant. The story is much the same in other areas of HPM weapons development, which began as an East–West technology race nearly 50 years ago. In the United States, where spending on electromagnetic weapons is down from cold-war levels, but remains at some US$47 million per year, progress is elusive. 'There's lots of smoke and mirrors,' says Peter Zimmerman, an emeritus nuclear physicist at King's College London and former chief scientist of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in Washington DC. Although future research may yield scientific progress, he adds, 'I cannot see they will build a useful, deployable weapon.'"

It makes it way too easy to disperse peaceful protestors when their message is politically inconvenient. The people you linked to were not protesters, they were rioters and anything but peaceful. A water cannon would have done a better job than the microwave weapon anyway.

A water cannon would have done a better job than the microwave weapon anyway.

Especially in desert countries with primitive plumbing and sewer systems.

The people you linked to were not protesters, they were rioters and anything but peaceful.

So you wouldn't object to using it on them then?

It makes it way too easy to disperse peaceful protestors when their message is politically inconvenient.

They can already be dispersed with ultrasonics or chemicals which would leave no photos and limited trace. If the government is going to cross the line to coercion it is going to cross the line. The problem isn't the nature of the weapon so much as the nature of the government. Totalitarian countries are totalitarian due to the behavior of the government, not because of the weapons they have.

When you design a weapon that is inferior in every way except that it's use leaves no obvious traces, it has only bad uses.

So, having an effect while being less likely to kill, maim, or injure, than rubber bullets, baton rounds, riot batons, etc., is essentially a design flaw then. Don't you think that democratic governments have a responsibility to minimize the harm to its citizens, if possible, even when coercion is necessary?

It is far more likely to torture or maim (when it works at all) than a water cannon all without risking the backlash of photojournalism. The latter part makes it more likely to be used when, in fact, a legitimate government would respect the right to peaceably assemble and a less legitimate one would otherwise tolerate it in order to avoid making the protesters into media heroes.

When I say inferior in every way, I mean that it is less likely to actually work in real world conditions than a fire hose while c

eg. In a big crowd the people at the back won't feel anything but they can be blocking the escape of the people at the front. The people at the front will have nowhere to go and could be exposed to this for a very long time. That's torture by any definition.

You are grossly underestimating the potential harm caused by large volumes of water moving at great velocity.

It might "just push you down". It might rupture your eye. It might break a rib.

And a riot shield.. yeah, nobody's ever been hurt by being physically struck with a hard object before, that's for damn sure. You sir are spot-on. Hey, while we're at it, why don't you rage against the use of tasers and advocate that police instead wrestle or use batons? That's certainly the lower-risk alternative, r

I never said that NOBODY EVER died after being struck with a taser. You're the idiot making that claim.

You're also the idiot making the claim that water cannons and batons don't kill people. Try and back that one up.

There is NO option available that is completely non-lethal. There have been and continue to be many attempts to find LESS lethal methods and devices. So far, all we've got are a handful of options that MAY kill, with some having a greater chance of killing or causing permanent injury. Among

Some microwave frequencies are (well) absorbed by (liquid) water. "Microwave" is a fairly broad church of electromagnetic radiation.

What makes microwave ovens useful and the potential of these weapons ideas interesting is the fact that living organisms are, as Bender would put it, bags of dirty water with occasionally lumps of soft rock. We are such dirty water because water is a common material in our environment (what do you build *anything* from? You build it from somet

It happens to be less effective than those other options by far and more expensive. The only 'advantage' (other than lining defense contractor pockets) is that it doesn't create photos of obvious government oppression.

A weapon that only works on sunny days seems to be a bit to finicky to rely on. I have doubts that it is less harmful than a fire hose. The one 'advantage' it clearly has is no opportunity to take clear pictures of peaceful protestors being unconstitutionally suppressed.

It happens to be less effective than those other options by far and more expensive. The only 'advantage' (other than lining defense contractor pockets) is that it doesn't create photos of obvious government oppression.

Honestly, $47 million a year is not exactly "lining defense contractor pockets" but American standards. Call me when we're half way to a billion a year...

It's a torture device, plain and simple. All the talk about crowd dispersal is smoke and mirrors.

I'm sure there are people creaming their pants when they think of a device that causes excruciating pain without leaving detectable marks.

AC is most likely correct. Once it gets cheap enough, it'll be deployed elsewhere for non-crowd control reasons.... You can almost hear the sales pitch already. "too many homeless sleeping in your park? Purchase our iArea iDenier and put it on a timer... when the parks closed, the microwaves start, and the homeless leave!"

You underestimate the number of ways already available that will cause excruciating pain without leaving detectable marks. One more device isn't going to suddenly allow clandestine torture. We can do that already.

I prefer living in a country that wastes money trying to find non-lethal weapons that don't work out vs. countries that take the cost-effective, pragmatic approach of "f**k em, bullets are nice and cheap."

There are plenty of reasons to criticize the US Department of Defense, no question. But the fact that they are spending money on non-lethal weapons means they at least care about a future war where not everyone has to get killed. Or even if you want to indulge your most Reynolds-wrapped tinfoil-clad conspiracy theories, a future where US domestic political protestors don't meet the same fate as those in the Prague Spring, Tienanmen Square or Syria.

The problem is that a government facing protesters and equipped with a non-lethal weapon that leaves no visible marks faces less of a barrier towards using it than one where the media can get juicy pictures of the government abusing its citizens. This thing going would be worse for free speech in the long run, and let's face it free speech is already under attack as it is.

Or even if you want to indulge your most Reynolds-wrapped tinfoil-clad conspiracy theories, a future where US domestic political protestors don't meet the same fate as those in the Prague Spring, Tienanmen Square or Syria.

Just because you aren't killed outright in front of TV cameras doesn't mean something horrible won't happen to you or your family in the dead of night. Or that you won't get "indefinitely detained" in the name of national security in a secret prison outside of US borders and tortured later. Welcome to New Rome.

The Chinese didn't kill the protestor who yelled at the guy in the tank before they drove on to Tienanmen Square outright either. But do you honestly think he's doing ok now?

Before you get too high on non-lethal weapons, please consider the taser. The problem with non-lethal weapons is that the users know this, and are thereupon much more likely to actually use them. And obviously, they don't just use them when they really need them.

Non-lethal to my mind equals "let's use physical force to control people more often".

Sigh, if only there were other ways to control peaceful pro... ah mobs of anarchists.
Like pepper spray, water cannons, clubs, horses, dogs, sonic weapons, machine guns, truncheons, whips, tear gas.....

There are some excellent non-lethal possibilities that the authorities are not using, such as laser dazzlers.
My favorite unused method is the foam generator. You cover the entire ravening mob in a layer of soapy foam about 3 meters thick, so they stumble around saying "where'd every body go?", and the cops pluck them out from the front end of the mob at their leisure. You can also include orange or green skin dyes or capsaicin in the foam if you're feeling nasty.

Not sure who decided to use the term "weapon" with "crowd-control" intentions, but doesn't the combination of the two words seem wrong? Merriam-Webster or whomever might define weapon definitely, but when I think of weapon, I think something intended to injure or kill. If you're attempting to control a crowd, especially of mostly non-violent protesters, injury or death is not the goal.

Of course those in power get to decide the terms of the engagement and seem to think an excess of force is the most appropri

The use of pepper spray and tear gas in a battle scenario are illegal under the chemical weapons convention. As for the rest of your examples (except machine guns), they have much too limited a range against an enemy with rifles. As for machine guns, those usually aren't considered non-lethal.

If a company has an idea for a weapon they think will be super-awesomes why don't they spend the cash to R&D it and when/if it is successful they can start offering it out. Can we stop blowing cash on stupid crap that won't work like jet packs and laser rifles?

Except most of the "wire" in screening isn't actually wire anymore, it's stranded synthetics with a vinyl coating.

Yeah, we just discovered this in the window screens that were installed in an enclosed porch that we had built recently. One day we had a window open, with the screen keeping the bugs out, and we left the porch for a while with some food sitting on a small table. When we went back to the porch, we saw a squirrel dashing back through the gash it had torn in the "screen" to get at the food.

Now we have a new project, of finding a real screen that will keep those cute little critters out the way we thought

Go to the hardware store, find the rolls of screen material. Pinch the corner of the material.

If it stays pinched, it's "metal." If it doesn't stay pinched, it's the other stuff.

I'm not sure it's worth it, though. The metal screens are harder to install - they pinch and fray way more easily - and I'm not convinced you'd get much benefit from it. They tear pretty easily, too - they're really fine wires, after all. I don't think the squirrel would have had too much trouble.

To defeat the squirrels, just reinforce the layer of bug screen (whether fiber or metal) with a layer of chicken wire. Then reinforce that with a layer of chain-link fencing if you're worried about the zombie apocalypse.

You can't way they have no microwave weapons. They have an inefficient crowd control device. We don't know what they have in the lethal range. Probably because they chose not to show it. What's to stop them 'taking the safety' off and cranking out a much higher power version?

Until very recently no one could get microwave lasers at room temperature. How ever that is no longer the case, I don't remember the specific article but it was posted either here on Slashdot or Reddit.

Some lab had been working on it, with some old papers from the Japanese. Basically it was done with specially doped ruby emitters if I remember correct.

Now that we have at least the general knowledge of one method to create microwave laser emitters at room temperate I expect to see progress on this in the next five to ten years. Though I myself much prefer the nonmilitary uses of microwave lasers, such as communication and wireless power emission.

Some smart weapon systems have the same limitations when it comes to rain or cloud cover. Also they tend to use water cannons for crowd control which would act as a defensive system for the crowds. Microwave weapons are expensive, have limited range and focus and it's difficult to avoid injuries and death while maintaining effectiveness. I'd think audio weapons would be just as effective without the limitations and potential for serious injuries. Yes it's easy to protect against most of them but we are talk

Also, any weaponry aimed at the masses has to contend with the issue:
being effective against a 20 year old male excellent physical condition marine, who the device is tested on, and on the other hand, not killing grandma. Or someone with asthma, or Lupus, or a heart condition.
That may be something in favor of traditional guns and clubs. When used they are used with the intent to stop quickly the target, and everyone knows there is a high risk or death or injury. This tends to limit their use. Just not enough.

They could do what they do with tasers. Lie. Tasers kill. Yet, in the US, they are still non-lethal. Tasing someone is on the same violence level as grabbing them by the wrist. And it kills, regularly. Other countries treat them as lethal. The police have to go through the steps with them as if they fired their firearm. In fact, I was talking with an NZ cop who talked about not being allowed to carry a taser, as they are a firearm replacement, and he chooses to be firearm-less, so, even if he were t

That non-violent prick was fighting with the people trying to end his disruption and trespass. Don't listen to the words in his mouth, because they are deception. He wanted to be, and made sure he was, tased.

A taser is NOT a firearm replacement. A firearm is only to be used lethally. You shoot someone only to kill them, only when there is risk that they will kill you or others. Period. A taser is a baton replacement. Yes, some people die after being hit with a taser. People die when being hit with b

That non-violent prick was fighting with the people trying to end his disruption and trespass. Don't listen to the words in his mouth, because they are deception. He wanted to be, and made sure he was, tased.

I'm so glad I moved out of the US. In the US, being in a public place during a public meeting is "trespass" if you say something the government doesn't like. At which time they will arrest and remove you.

You are aware that not everyone hit with a taser goes down?

You are aware that not everyone hit with a taser who goes down ever gets up again? It's lethal. And no, I wasn't aware that not everyone hit with a taser doesn't go down. I did a search and found piles of videos of "taser failures" and in *every* one of them, the person drops to the ground when tased

I've wondered about that since I first heard about this kind of weapon. I wear hard contact lenses, and I vividly remember a safety film we watched in junior-high before they let us weld anything. The film explained that looking at the flash from an arc welder can vaporize the liquid between the lens and your eye and cause the lens to adhere to your eye. Then when you try to take your contacts out, you pull off the front of your eye. So I wonder, have they deemed these micowave crowd-dispersal weapons a

If you are not familiar with microwave weapons associated with Covert Harassment of political dissidents then try searching for "Targeted Individuals" on YouTube of search for "Electronic Harassment" on youtube or Google and get ready to step into a real twilight zone.
You could also check out these sites:
http://www.mindjustice.com/ [mindjustice.com]
http://www.areyoutargeted.com/ [areyoutargeted.com]

At 1,500W a 2.4GHz microwave driven by a high capacitance array, steered into place with say a dish antenna will fry electronics. I mean fry! It's just about the right wavelength to do so. Of course anyone standing in the way will get that section within the beam cooked almost immediately but that's just a collateral problem.

At 1,500W a 2.4GHz microwave driven by a high capacitance array, steered into place with say a dish antenna will fry electronics. I mean fry! It's just about the right wavelength to do so. Of course anyone standing in the way will get that section within the beam cooked almost immediately but that's just a collateral problem.

Talk to a EE first. I think you want high directionality, high gain. Capacitance isn't going to help you. Also, although this is/., on a regular basis I submit myself to a radiation flux right around 1.5 kilowatts per sq meter and barely sweat (well, as long as its below 80 degrees or so). Its called "sunlight". Not a military codeword, but genuine plain ole fashioned "sunlight". So if you want to "cook immediately" you need to focus to far, far smaller than 3 feet on a side. When you calculate the

Progress in laser weapons has been slow, but steady.
Each generation of laser weapon has more power in a smaller package. Shooting down small rockets and artillery shells has been demonstrated, but the laser system takes three semitrailers. Another two generations of that and it will be useful.

I'm fairly certain that microwaves can be used as a weapon. There are many documented cases of people unplugging microwaves and throwing them at other people, be it a domestic dispute or even to stop a robbery.

I can push a plane at hundreds of miles per hour through the air quite "easily" and put some destructive force on the end of it. Hell, you can do similar with a model plane if you really want to test the concept. This is what bullets, missiles and grenades rely on to work, and it's successful.

But to make a beam or ray that has an effect over that same flying-distance of any of the above, I have to overcome the inverse-square law and line-o

But I think it was "hell Mary" attempt by the contracted to get the military or police to buy one. The device requires a significant size truck mountable antenna. I think in real life the enemy could knock it out before it was deployed. There were rumors the Denver police were going to have one for the 2008 Democratic Convention, but they never materialized.